IGDA Offers Statement On Steam and Itch Content Bans But Some Devs Feel Thrown Under Bus

By Elijah Gonzalez  |  July 29, 2025 | 12:59pm
Video Games News igda
IGDA Offers Statement On Steam and Itch Content Bans But Some Devs Feel Thrown Under Bus

In response to Steam and Itch.io’s widely criticized policy changes that have de-indexed and removed many games with adult content, the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) has put out a statement.

“The International Game Developers Association (IGDA) is seriously alarmed by the recent wave of game delistings, deindexing, and payment disruptions targeting adult-themed titles on platforms such as Steam and Itch.io.” the statement reads. “Reports suggest these actions have been taken with little to no communication and have disproportionately harmed developers producing legal, consensual, and ethically-developed content, including creators from marginalized communities.”

One of the first lines of concern after the new Steam and Itch.io policies were discovered was that they would disproportionately affect games with queer themes, which are often considered “adult” for simply existing, and the statement addresses this: “Games that feature consensual adult content, including queer, kink-positive, or romantic narratives, are easily targeted under vague or overly cautious enforcement, often forcing developers into silence or self-censorship because platforms fear perceived risks associated with hosting legal adult content.” As the statement points out, these changes have been driven by pressure from payment processors like Visa, Mastercard, and others, which can enforce content changes by threatening to withhold their services.

The IGDA also lays out the impact of these rule changes on developers, which include: “Loss of income: Delistings strip developers of visibility and revenue, often cutting off their primary source of income. Lack of notice or explanation: Many developers receive no advance warning or rationale for enforcement, and no opportunity to revise or appeal. Misidentification of content: Consensual, legal adult games are being flagged or removed simply for being explicit. Reputational harm: Removals without context can suggest wrongdoing, damaging careers and credibility. Creative suppression: Developers may preemptively self-censor or abandon projects out of fear of removal. Disproportionate impact on marginalized voices: Queer, trans, femme-identifying, and POC developers may be disproportionately affected by overreaching censorship.”

To further emphasize the last point, developer Cara Cadaver announced yesterday that her upcoming horror game, VILE: Exhumed, has been banned for sale on Steam. It was removed for “sexual content with depictions of real people,” which is all the more head-scratching because this sexual content is implied and never directly shown. Having played the game, it is undeniably unpleasant and uncomfortable, but in service of critiquing misogyny, stigmatization of sex work, and sexual violence against women. And while its writing is upsetting, most of the story is delivered via webpage text.

However, the IGDA’s statement has drawn criticism from many developers for language that arguably sounds overly compromising to censorship efforts, such as the following: “To be clear, the IGDA does not condone or support content that promotes or fetishizes sexual violence, non-consensual sexual acts, or the sexualization of minors,” the IGDA statement reads. “These forms of content are incompatible with IGDA’s values and the ethical standards of responsible game development. Our advocacy focuses specifically on developers creating consensual, lawful, and ethically-developed games, and we support clear, consistent content policies, not vague or overly broad censorship.”

Freelance game designer and writer Bertine van Hövell responded to the statement on Bluesky, “Unfortunately it is a very overly workshopped statement that can’t seem to make up its mind and is bound to be misinterpreted by readers. Who is the audience?? We are uncomfortable with icky themes, want people have a dialog with antagonistic pressure groups and also here’s some porn payment providers? I need to know how this got approved for release.”

In an article that ran on VICE before it was taken down (seemingly out of fear of controversy or legal action), reporter Ana Valens wrote about Collective Shout, the Australian anti-porn organization that claimed responsibility for the Steam and Itch.io changes. This relatively small organization seemingly has ties to right-wing religious groups in the US, connections to anti-trans activists, and was somehow successful at convincing payment processors to change their policies in a way that has quickly impacted the biggest gaming distribution platform on PC.

Many took the IGDA’s words, “We urge platforms, payment processors, and industry leaders to engage in dialogue with developers and advocacy organizations,” to imply that developers should engage in dialogue with the advocacy groups that pushed payment processors to make these content changes.

“Dialogue is utterly pointless when your interlocutor is operating in transparent bad faith,” ‪wrote Lazzie B., designer and audio director at Arbitrary Metric. “Speaking here of the .. advocacy organizations in question. We know they’re radical eliminationist religious nationalists. What’s the ideal compromise position with that, as far as IGDA is concerned?”

“I’m sorry but falling over yourself to say ‘BUT WE DON’T CONDONE THE ICKY BAD SEX GAMES’ every other paragraph of your statement is just signaling, over and over again, that there’s developers the IGDA wants to appear supportive of and developers that it’s okay to throw under the bus,” game writer and narrative designer Bruno Dias wrote on Bluesky. “ultimately, it’s insane to be talking about safeguards. you should be talking about standing. you should be talking about how nobody attacking developers, be it payment processors or right-wing scolds, has any validity to be making claims at all. otherwise you’re just supporting censorship on grounds of potential theoretical harm brought up by entities that aren’t the (supposed) harmed parties and have no expertise on the matter. why the fuck does fucking mastercard get to police morality other than ‘might makes right’?”

While there were many criticisms of the statement, the IGDA also linked to a pair of online petitions that have gained a bit of traction. One addresses how payment processors are censoring online content, while the other is the ACLU’s call to end Mastercard’s policies that negatively impact adult content sellers and sex workers. In addition to supporting these petitions, many have taken to flooding Visa and Mastercard’s lines with requests to end their censorship policies. Both companies’ contact info can be found below:

 
Join the discussion...